从会话含义看法庭交叉询问中对证词的质疑

发布时间：2021-07-03 20:50

　　本文对法庭交叉询问中会话含义的现象进行研究,旨在揭示会话含义对公诉人/律师在法庭交叉询问中实现质疑证人/被告证词目的所起的作用并发现主要的会话含义的语言实现形式。 根据Levinson的会话含义原则,我们在汉语法庭的交叉询问中辨别出三种会话含义的推导策略:扩展,详述和否定。在每个策略下面介绍了一些语言实现形式,例如:推导出强的表达方式来否定证人/被告的证词,使证人/被告说出额外的含义,确切说明某专门术语以揭露更多的内容等。 本文进一步展示公诉人/律师怎样用他们从证人/被告的证词中得出的会话含义来质疑证人/被告的证词。公诉人/律师一般从四个方面来质疑证人/被告的证词语:客观性、一致性、资格和能力。 我们希望本文的研究能够有助于认识会话含义对质疑证人/被告证词的作用,加深对会话含义理论的了解;有助于律师更好地利用会话含义推导策略,从而使他们在法庭交叉询问中的工作更有效。 

【文章来源】：广东外语外贸大学广东省

【文章页数】：67 页

【学位级别】：硕士

【文章目录】：
Declaration
Acknowledgements
Abstract (English)
Abstract (Chinese)
Transcription Conventions
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
    1.1 Introduction
    1.2 Rationale
    1.3 Objectives of the Study
    1.4 Data and Methodology
    1.5 The Organization of the Thesis
Chapter 2 Literature Review
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Studies on Challenge of Witnesses/defendants' Testimony in Cross-examination
        2.2.1 Domestic researches
        2.2.2 Overseas researches
    2.3 Overview of the Theory of Conversational Implicature
        2.3.1 Conversational implicature in ordinary talk
        2.3.2 Conversational implicature in the legal context
    2.4 Summary
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 Levinson's Theory of Conversational Implicature
    3.3Conversational Implicature and Challenge of Testimony
    3.4 Theoretical Framework
Chapter 4 Manifestation of Conversational Implicuture in Cross-examination.
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Absence of Particularized Implicature
    4.3 Explicitness
    4.4 Redundancy
    4.4 Summary
Chapter 5 Deriving Conversational Implicature in Cross-examination
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 Conversational Implicature-deriving Strategies
        5.2.1 Using Q-principle to derive conversational implicature
        5.2.2 Using I-principle to derive conversational implicature
        5.2.3 Using M-principle to derive conversational implicature
    5.4 Summary
Chapter 6 The Function of Conversational Implicaure in Challenging
    6.1 Introduction
    6.2 Challenging Objectivity
        6.2.1 Challenging the objectivity of the source of testimony
        6.2.2 Challenging the objectivity of the contents of testimony
    6.3 Challenging Consistency
        6.3.1 Challenging consistency in trial testimony
        6.3.2 Challenging consistency between statements in prior records and cross-examination
    6.4 Challenging Qualifications
    6.5 Challenging Capability
    6.6 Summary
Chapter7 Conclusion
    7.1 Summary of the Present Study
    7.2 Conclusions
    7.3 Implications
    7.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Appendix Data Used in the Present Research
References:



本文编号：3263330